 My wife I went out back. All right, we'll see how we work here with. Cooked up through my phone. Welcome everybody. This is the general housing military affairs committee. We are taking up as to 37. Which is a bill that we received this week. It is a zoning and affordable housing bill. And we have several folks here that we invited as guests who. Two folks who have written to us in opposition to at least section two and perhaps more. As well as folks who had support now. I am just going to, and we have Jacob hammer back who will, who will perhaps operate as a zoning whisperer for us. When we have questions about what the state policies are in these categories. If we have questions and Ellen is here to go over and Ellen, I guess you'll go over some of the stuff. David was originally. Invited to go over the sections that he had written. That's what we talked about. Yes. A day before yesterday. But David is double booked in his in commerce working on CRF material. So Ellen is going to, I think Ellen, you should start off the day for us. Just to go through the sections of the bill that we did not say. So I will state once again. This is just our second day with the bill while we've had information that's come over from the Senate that I've shared with the committee. As well as some of the emails that I've gotten. Both in support in opposition. So we are vaguely familiar with the bill, but we are still wrapping our heads around the nuances of this. So for the folks for Karen and Chip in particular, I know that you have been in opposition into the sections of the bill. And I just want to let you know that we're not as up to speed with elements of this bill. As you may be. So just remember that as we move forward, we are still learning about what this bill is about and what the, what the elements of. What we're talking about, why they're important to you and to, and to the communities who have, who have gotten in touch with us. And I think the same thing goes for, for. Peter Tucker, who was here to speak in support of the bill, or at least elements of the bill. Just, just remember that we're still starting our work on this bill. So there may be, if we stop you and ask you questions. It'll be because we're trying to catch up on the content. So with that, I'd like to start with Ellen. And Ellen, if you can post. If you want. The sections that we have to just go through, which, which I understand you didn't write. But if you could just give us a quick nutshell about what we, what we're missing, like don't even spend that much time reading it, just sort of, if you could just give us the 25 word version of each section. And then David will join us when he's able. Sure. So. On that then I did submit a summary document. It is posted on your webpage for today. And so I did try to do a one sentence description of each section. So that would be great. I think that would be great to help orient you guys with the issues. And so. Then I can, I can use that to do the quick version of the sections that we haven't gone over yet. So if you could just do that verbally, that would be great. And then, and then anything deeper than that will, will wait for David. Great. So. David's sections start with section 17. That's page 15 of the bill, section 17 is a age specific housing study. So it charges the department of housing and community development and the department of disabilities, aging and independent living with conducting a study and to provide recommendations on age specific and age specific housing plan and policies to focus on older Vermonters. And that's due by January 15th, 2021. Section 18 and 19. Those are both related to short term rentals. So section 18 authorizes the department of housing and community development to adopt emergency rules to collect data on short term rentals. And to submit a report concerning that data in conjunction with housing needs. With a housing needs assessment. The compilation of laws regarding short term member. Short term rentals and recommendations for statutory and municipal regulation. Of short term rentals. Section 19. Is as language to title 24. To give municipalities the authority to regulate short term rentals. Provided that the ordinance or bylaws. Do not adversely impact. The availability of long term rental housing. Section 20 was taken out of the bill by the Senate. Section 21. Directs the department of environmental conservation. To assist the town of Brattleboro and the tri park cooperative. In. Implementing tri parks master plan. Including loan forgiveness or restructuring. To allow for improvements to infrastructure. To improve similar. Assistance to other parks. And to identify changes necessary to expand the state assistance. From other. From certain special funds. Yeah, so this is the section is broadly titled mobile home park infrastructure. Section 22. Authorizes the treasurer to use funds available through the credit. Facility for local investments to provide financing for mobile home park infrastructure projects. And then section 23 is the Vermont housing incentive program. So it creates this incentive program to provide matching grants to landlords to improve rental housing that is vacant. And then section 24. So otherwise does not comply with health and safety regulations. And yeah, so that's the, that's the high level overview of those sections. Thank you. I think that's sufficient for today for those sections. So thank you. And so excuse me, I'm sorry. So you'll be here. On this, on these sections. And before. I don't have the agenda in front of me. Do we have a set order run? I don't have a set order with witnesses that you scheduled. I don't, I don't have it. I don't have a double screen going here. Not a set order. We were going to start with David and then begin with the three witnesses. Chip and Karen and Peter, but it. In no particular order. There was no reasoning to how I listed them. It was basically just as I invited them. Okay. So I think what I'll do is. I will. We'll start with Chip. And then go to Karen and then Peter. And before we start with Chip, I'd like to just again, introduce Jacob. Hemric. From the department. As it became clear during our testimony on Tuesday. There's Jacob. There's going to be some finer details that. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. We may need clarification on, on how we, how the state interprets. Some of the statute that we're talking about. One question that I have that I wanted to put to you. Not for an answer today, but, but perhaps if you can. Let us know how difficult it might be. It's it. I wanted to know how many people or municipalities. Does this actually impact. In other words, there's 246 towns. Not all of them have water and sewer systems. Most. And, you know, again, I'm going to use water, Barry as an example. We have a downtown designation where we have water and sewer, but we also have a water line. That same water line goes out through Waterbury town. So we are impacted by this in the areas. So I just would love to get an idea of what we're talking about. What kind of communities. Where there's an, where there's not, I'm assuming that they're where there's not an overlap. Between designated areas and water lines. Because there's already zoning that exists. And there's also zoning that. Promotes density in those designated downtowns. And we talked about that this is for towns that may not be designated down to our areas of where there's bylaws for multi-unit. Structures. Does that sound like an impossible request? No, that's, that's not an impossible request. And in fact, over the summer, we've been working on that. So I think that we can pull up a drop-down layer that shows the status of a municipal plan in their bylaws, whether they have zoning subdivision. As well as the, the, the mapped. Water and wastewater areas that we're aware of. Part of that data is part of one provision in the bill is to ask the municipalities map, map their water and sewer lines. And, and I think that would get at. A better, more reliable data set of where the water and sewer service areas are and where the lines are. And, and as you may remember from the summary that the, there were related act to 50 bill provisions that were pulled out. And one of them is a delegation of the water wastewater permits from the state and municipalities. So it seems reasonable that, that they have a rough, that we could have, we could have a improved statewide data layer of where the water and sewer lines are. Okay. Cause it strikes me and, and Jacob, I don't know if you could turn up your microphone at all. You're coming across a little bit quietly. Yeah. Because again, I'm, I'm still learning about this bill. And you know, I was struck by just the, I'm just trying to get an idea of who, what, and where we're talking about this is, this is the proposal is. It seems like it's revolutionary and huge, but I don't know that it is. But I do know that there are areas that are going to be, you know, but I can think of, you know, waste field has a water system, but not a full municipal wastewater treatment, but though they have a miniature one. So does that mean, and they have bus service that's irregular. Does that mean that they would, you know, how would they fall under this? I think is where I'm going with that. I just wanted to do that before we took testimony before we forgot. Before I forgot. Representative try to question before we start taking testimony. I did have a question for Ellen. In respect to, with respect to the. What are we calling them? Improvement projects for mobile home parks. So our infrastructure improvements. So would that be creating a new or better sewer system or water system within the park? Is that's what, is that what is anticipated in some, in those sections? That might be a question for David. That might be. Yeah, let's hold off on that till Ellen's with us on that. Okay, cool. Yeah. No, David is, I mean, this is, we have a lot of people here and I think we're just, we just had to look at that. And I guess it obviously came from the center, but David has quite a bit of knowledge of the, of the mobile home park situations. So, all right. Well, welcome Chip Sawyer. Welcome from St. Albans. Nice of you to make it with us today. And I appreciate you reaching out earlier and letting us know your, your concerns about. About this bill. We have to be on the floor too. So we have a short, we have a short day ahead of us. And so with that, I've taken enough time for myself. Please chip. Join us. Welcome. Thank you. Yes. Thanks. And thank you representative Stevens into the committee members for the time. So I'm. In, in interest of time, I'm. I've submitted some comments at length and I've submitted. Some proposed amendments that I put together after some. Discussions here in St. Almond city and with regional partners. And let me just really paraphrase really quickly. Where we stand and. What concerns us about S to 37. I think what concerns everyone even more is, is that. You know, there is, there is a fair and affordable housing crisis in the state. We've been talking about it for a long time at the state level and we've been talking about it for a long time. We've been talking about it at the regional level. In the local level. And I think we all know that. The way in which the state tries to address the housing crisis is going to play out in our local communities in some way, shape, or form. And basically it's going to be an issue of finances. And it's also going to be an issue of permitting. And the market in general. In terms of the goal of creating more affordable housing in the states. You're going to find a lot of people in agreement. But when it comes to what's been proposed as a, as a solution in S to 37 specifically in section two. There's worry in our community that. It's, it's not the right. It's not the right way to find a solution that's going to work. We've basically we have a shared concerns amongst our planning commission, our city leadership and our. Our appointed representatives to our regional planning commission. And a lot of this comes out of the fact that. We've been doing a lot in the city of St. Alvin's to redevelop our community in general. And. We have, we are already a pretty densely permitted community. And in fact, many of our existing multifamily. In the city of St. Alvin's among all of our residential districts pretty much match what we'd be forced to do. For a minimum lot size as proposed in section two of S to 37. But the issue is that. There are a lot of considerations and provisions and standards that go into a community's local zoning statute. And it's all supposed to work together. It's all about everything from. A lot with two design review to lot size to. What is permitted by a right versus what is conditional use review? And then what are the considerations that you're supposed to take into account with conditional use review. And. Normally when a community engages in its local planning process. And then it's land use regulation process that comes from that process. So that's what we do. All these things are drafted in lock step and they all work together. So that. Development in your community. Implements. Chapter one 17, a title 24. And, and your municipal plan and other community capacity and context concerns. What section two of S to 37 would do is across the board, we're going to look at some of the. Huge changes to minimum lot size rules. And some considerations for what's in and what's out for conditional use review. Without any benefit of any real planning process as to. Whether or not this would really work. Whether it would work with all the other considerations. And so that's what we're going to look at. And so that's what we're going to look at. And so that's what we're going to look at. There are many different communities in which this is, this would play out. And I know, and it makes sense that it was chosen for areas with water and wastewater, because those are the areas that could support the densities that are being called for. But. You've, you're capturing a lot of communities. A lot of different kinds of communities. And that all have slightly different rules that work for them. And so whether it was a local land use, or a local land use and conditional use review. Continue to be fundamental tools of how these communities. Provide direction for local land use. And to change these things in this way. Without any idea of. What other aspects of. Local land use that's going to affect, you know, we just. That's not the way in which you know, In the past, and even in 2004 with Act 115, which substantially rewrote Chapter 117, like, you know, many people were worried about that back then, too. What Section 2 of S237 proposes is to do blows Act 115 out of the water in terms of what sort of effect, discrete effect it has on very important pieces of local land use regulation. And typically, the way land use regulation works in the state is that the local communities get the ability to regulate the way we do from the state. We are creatures from the state. We are given a process we're supposed to follow in terms of how we come up with our planning and our processes. In Chapter 117 has some pretty comprehensive statewide goals for land use that we're supposed to carry out on the ground. But we are given the ability to find a way to meet those goals that also meets the context of all of our little communities. And it's very rare in which Chapter 117 says things like, there are a couple exceptions to the rule that really say, oh, and by the way, if you have this rule, it has to look exactly like this. One would be the accessory dwelling units where we are supposed to treat a property with an accessory dwelling unit the same way we would treat a single family home. Very direct, very specific. And that's fine. Another is there's a rule that no community can prohibit multi-family housing outright within your community. You have to allow it somewhere. There are a couple other cases. Group homes of a certain size have to be permitted the same way a single family home is. Those are all good things that have done a lot for housing of various types in the state. But other than that, it was really more a matter of within these two highway lanes, you've got to find a way to drive your community toward where we need, where the state needs you to be. And if when we engage in the zoning for great neighborhoods process with DHCD and when we attended the hearings on the road of the Senate Economic Development Committee about what to do about housing in the state, you know, I never thought that we'd see something like what's proposed in section 2 of 237 that has very specific state preemptions of local land use regulation. And there was really no planning process. And I know there was no local planning process about whether or not these changes would actually work. What I thought we might see and what I've asked for in my amendments and what you'll see in some of the compromises put forward by Vermont Planners Association is we'd have some state goals that are informed by what we know, where we know we need to get. Like an order that communities need to increase their housing densities by a certain percentage over three years or communities need to implement an average net dwelling unit density over a period of three years to say that my entire community needs to go to a to an eighth of an acre minimum lot size across the board in any district that has that allows residential use no matter what. It really breaks a lot of other aspects of our land use regulation. And it ignores the fact that we have different residential districts of districts of different types that have developed historically in different ways. It ignores that we have some districts that allow dwelling units at a 16th of an acre. And that if you were to average out the dwelling unit density in our city, we'd probably already meet this goal without needing this broad base change to all of our regulations across the board. I think that I think I think that obviously we should have done something like this a long time ago and we're all you know that that's on all of us. There should have been some sort of really directed guiding legislation increasing housing density in the state action like this is needed. And I understand the need that how legislators feel that really bold action is needed because we've got a bold problem here and COVID-19 doesn't make it any easier. But I don't think this is the way to do it. And I do think unfortunately reacting to S 237 and trying to make sure that that this doesn't pass is actually delayed. Some of the housing density improvements that we could have made in our city because now our planning commission has been talking for four months about S 237 instead of modernizing our residential districts or coming up with a dwelling unit bonus program for blighted homes. And that's all good. It's all part of the discussion. And as long as we end up with the right solution by the time we're done, then you know, then no harm, no foul. But I would advocate and I do in the amendments I proposed, I advocate for at least another year of discussion about what's really going to work for a legislative new legislation for housing density in the state with more discussion where, where all of the stakeholders know that what we were actually talking about is going to be a legislative mandate because no one knew that in the stakeholder processes that I was part of and that could really guide a discussion toward what people think is going to work. If the members of this committee and the legislature feel that we got to do something more, then I would, I would plead with you to consider two things in terms of the way section two of S 237 is written right now. And one is instead of going to an across the board, minimum lot size allow us to do an average net minimum lot size. So if I have a portion of my community that's 2,000 square feet, a lot size for dwelling unit and a portion of my community, that's 4,000 an eighth of an acre and a portion of my community, that's maybe a little higher when you average them all out. We are going to have an average net density of an eighth of an acre. And even barring that I still think there needs to be some room in this bill or different local solutions that can be made, but still meet the goals of the bill, because you're going to find some little quirk where section two just kind of breaks something. And you end up with a community spending more time trying to plan new ways to counteract the new rules that S 237 is putting into place so that people feel like they're still going in the right direction. We want everyone working in the same direction towards how are we just going to increase housing density in the most appropriate way. So I would look at the constraints report, the opt out provision that's in S 237. I think that's too binary. It's either you're in or you're out and I don't think it should be that way. I think if you're going to keep a lot of section two in, you've got to take that constraints report and make it more of an ability for the community to talk to DHCD about coming up with an alternate solution that still meets the intent of this new bill and then would still make that community of eligible for all the incentives that are linked to implementing the inclusive development that are written into the bill. If that could work, then you could say, look, even if there's something in section two that you can't do, or if you can find a better way to make it work in your community and still basically achieve, you know, making sure that parking rules aren't over over burdensome for housing, making sure that you still basically have whatever the new goal for minimum outside is going to be in the state, then you can still have access to those incentives. Otherwise, I think it's really it's not it's not a carrot approach. It's a stick approach because you're making incentives available to everyone unless they can't comply with section two. And you're going to hear from Karen Horn at VLCT. She has a list of some communities that could have some major issues and would have to file that that constraints report. Because the other problem of the constraints report is that if I have a section of my community with water and sewer service and I really can't do the eighth of an acre minimum lot size, that means my whole community is out. I have to file a constraints report. We're out. And we don't get access to the incentives that are linked to the to implementing the inclusive development rules. I think that's enough. I could certainly talk more happy to take any questions. And thanks again for the opportunity. Here, no, thank you for coming in. And thank you for it. Well, first of all, for congratulations to St. Albans for all the work that they have been doing that you guys have had quite an amazing run of construction and renaissance downtown. And that's we're having a little different right now with the main road with Main Street being torn up. But you guys have done a really great job up there. The I think we've got a couple of questions here. And we will have you back because I mean, we were going to have a lot of questions as we get into the nitty gritty of some of this. But let me let me start with the representative walls and then representative Kallaki. Yeah, thank you. And I want to second, first of all, what I'll say and out again, so we spend quite a bit of time in Albans and play good, you're doing good work. Unfortunately, my audio got a little funky when you were talking about lot size. And I thought I heard you saying something, proposing something about mixing. And I'm sorry, that's when my audio got really bad. So could you just sum that up? Yeah, I think I would say that, you know, and this is where, you know, when city might start to diverge from other communities in terms of what we think is appropriate for to come out of Montpelier. But typically, the state has given us guidelines and and general targets to meet with our local Angus regulation. And I think that if we were going to do something about minimum lot size with legislation, it should allow communities to reach a target averaged out across the different land use districts in the community. You might have a really dense district, a less sort of a middle of the road district and then one district that has historically not been as dense and communities not quite ready to really do something drastic there. And politically, it might not be possible. So allow us to average out the minimum lot sizes in our various residential districts to meet an average target. That's the idea. OK, thank you. Representative Clarke. Sorry, excuse my cat here. Wanted to come into the conversation as well. Mr. Sor, I'm wondering if in the bill, there's an opt out for communities. So would you would St. Albans be able to opt out of this in the way the bill is currently written? It doesn't work for the reason. You know, we would. It would mean that. I wouldn't I wouldn't want to. I mean, quite frankly, if we if S. Thirty seven passed as written to it, there are some parts of it that would be really hard for a community. We would have to find a way to adjust the rest of our regulations to counteract some of the consequences. It and it might be possible to do. I don't want to just give up. I prefer to take the challenge head on. What concerns me is that a community that has to opt out. Even even if it's because aspects of Section two aren't going to work out in a small portion of your community. I mean, as it's written, you have to opt out your entire community. And then it means you're not eligible for some incentives that are available to all the other communities that were able to comply with the new law. And so then you're not on an even playing field with everyone else despite your best efforts. I don't you know, there's an aspect of fairness that I don't think that meets. So that's my concern with that. Thank you. It represented good solace then saw. So one of the things that historically is we've talked multiple times about the historical development patterns and that historically development patterns around the US and in Vermont have very much fallen along policy discriminatory lines for people of color, for people who is not just economics, but kind of in that rain as well. And so when I hear you say these words about looking at historically what the development patterns are, that's something that really comes up for me and particularly around wanting to average out across your area or across the areas because this bill is not just specifically for St. Albans, but for the entire state. And so when we have when you're talking about some areas might be denser, some areas might be less dense. Let's follow historical patterns. That's something that really raises a red flag for me. And so I wanted to don't specifically have a question in there, I thought that I might be able to get to that. But I guess my question is how have you all been talking about and thinking about that in terms of the equity issue that the historical development patterns really have been inequitable? And so then how if you're advocating for not across the board a density, but instead continuing to have some parts be more dense and some parts to be less dense? Well, I would say that it's probably a process in which a community would have to increase the densities across the board. You allow densities. And you'll find that many communities over time have somehow ended up with zoning that allows for less density than what did historically develop over time. And I think there should be a lot more resources and discussion put into allowing communities, giving us the resources to true up to start. The starting point should be we do an analysis of how dense are we right now. Forget what our regulations tried to do when they were changed two decades ago. So that's our starting point. How dense are we now? None of that has gone into S237, though. These rules came from not from Vermont, but from Western states is what has what's been said or what I've heard in the past. I would say a lot of it is contextual. In St. Albans, if you want it, we're still a very dense community in terms of what our regulations allow. And I think that perhaps in terms of the equity discussion, there's a lot more for us to learn and to listen. But that's also not something that's in here. I mean, if we're looking for zoning or land use regulations that are more mindful of implicit bias and equity issues and social justice, I don't know that what's proposed in Section 2 of S237 has benefited from that conversation at all. I think we should have the conversation. And I think it should. I think the conversation should be forced in local communities. But I don't see that in this bill. Representative Sahn and then Trayano. Mr. Sawyer, when you were talking about this appeals process, was the entity this proposed appeals process in an opt-out situation, DHCD was the entity? Yeah, that makes the most sense to me. That's where I would go in terms of my knee jerk, in terms of how communities have typically interacted with the state on land use issues. The DHCD is one of our biggest resources for ideas and technical know-how. And also because I believe the constraints report opt out right now is supposed to go to DHCD. So that's why I thought of them. OK, I just wanted to make sure I wasn't impugning the wrong agency accidentally, which is to say that this debate so far has very strong echoes of Act 46. I don't know if you're familiar with that with school consolidation. But essentially, it's establishing a statewide mandate for action across all communities of one size fits all. It supposedly had a built-in appeals process, like the one you're proposing. But in practice, none of those appeals were actually approved based on their merits. They were only appealed based on already existing constraints. And so I'm worried that you're selling yourself short by wanting to have this appeals process. Again, not to impugn DHCD and say that they would be as disingenuous as other players in Act 46 were. But I would definitely caution you to not get the changes you want built into the bill as it stands rather than relying on the good faith of actors outside of the bill. That would be a dangerous step, in my opinion. OK, so noted. Thank you. Representative Triano. I just had a comment on parking. I know we had a short discussion the other day about it. Representative Hango seems to be up to speed on this. But I grew up on a street where there were five homes and large trees that existed on this street. And to a point now where our family home is gone, but an influx of multifamily dwellings. When I grew up there were all single family dwellings. So an influx of numerous multifamily dwellings has presented a parking problem. When you build a four family unit and you put one driveway in, the rest of those vehicles go on the street. And at some point, the street is unavailable for parking. So in reality, I see landlords suffering from this as a result of not being able to either rent or sell these properties when you can't leave your vehicle on the street overnight or you can't find a spot in front of your home. So I just rely on my experience for that. And I think all street parking is very important in these developments. And that it's not an encumbrance to landlords. It could be, in the long run, a benefit to landlords. Yeah, I didn't get to speak to that. I do think the parking provision, which has local land use offices having to monitor leases based on whether or not parking spots are included in the lease and then cutting our parking minimum parking rules in half if a property is within a certain distance of a transit stop. Although I don't know what a transit stop is in Chittenden County. I can tell you it's not the same thing up in Franklin County. I understand that. Because my house becomes a transit stop if I call Green Mountain Transit. But I think that we need to be able to come up with our own solutions to that. Typically households in our city, rental households, have more cars than what we hear is happening across the nation. Most of our streets become one lane streets if all of the on-street parking is utilized. And that's OK. But it becomes a hassle that, and we do start getting complaints at City Hall. I think we need to modernize our parking regulations because sometimes we find out projects we want to happen are saddled with more parking than they need. I get that. But we've got to be able to have our own conversation and to come up with a process by which, I think on a case by case basis, a development's parking is based upon what's been released by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, but also similar developments in your community or around your community. So you know you're comparing apples to apples. Chip, I'm going to pass the microphone over to Karen Horne right now just in the manner of time. Thank you very much for your testimony. Like I said, we will have you back on this as we try to keep figuring it out. But thank you for being speaking in mostly English about zoning issues. We appreciate that and we'll be in touch. But and please feel free to stay and listen to the rest of the testimony. Karen Horne from VLCT. Thank you. Thank you very much for having me. And I would comment that you've already had a bit more of a substantive conversation regarding the details of the bill than was had in the Senate the two days before you adjourned on June 26, because as you remember, there were a lot of balls in the air that week before you recessed, not adjourned. So there are a couple of issues that Chip has mostly touched on that are of great concern to municipalities. And the first one that I'm going to discuss is actually a new issue that was not raised in the Senate had not yet come to my attention. So section one would require towns to map water and wastewater lines facilities and service areas. And there's a few problems with this. The first being that many of the water lines and wastewater lines in our more urban areas in the state are very old. In Rutland, some of them date before the Civil War. And they're working on replacing them, but that is a fact. So we don't actually know where all of those lines are. That's one problem. The second issue that has been raised recently is that generally you do not put out maps of water and wastewater lines for public consumption because of security and, in fact, terrorism concerns. That if somebody wants to majorly disrupt a community, they can affect your water supply. So the comment that I received from a number of actually public works directors on this is that if you wanted to generally have a map of the general service area, that certainly would be something that would be workable. But if you want to map every single line and where it is and all the interconnections and have that in a public forum, that's fairly ill-considered. And then clearly producing those maps will be very expensive for some communities that have not put all of that information to paper in the detail that's being required of the bill. So I would just ask you to think about those issues. Section two is, of course, the other section that I wanted to discuss with you. And we have the same concerns around a one-size-fits-all cookie cutter approach to requiring inclusive development. We do have unique communities in the state. They spent decades putting together plans and zoning regulations that enact division for that community. And I did, I sent some testimony, which I believe is on your website, about what some of the perverse effects might be in some of the municipalities that would be affected by the requirements. So in Bennington, you realize that due to the PFOA crisis that they had down there in the 2010 decade, they had to extend water lines to very rural parts of town where ordinarily they would not have ever extended those water lines. That was to provide people with clean water supply. But if you had to provide one-quarter acre lots all the way along those lines into remote parts of town outside of the downtown and village centers, you would drastically and completely change the nature of that community. In Montpelier, and Montpelier is really a model community in terms of infill development, rehabilitating old buildings upstairs in downtown into really nice apartments, well-insulated with elevators and all those expensive amenities. They've done that with the affordable housing advocates around the state. They've also changed their zoning to allow for older buildings outside of the downtown center and the core areas to be rehabbed and multi-units or duplexes allowed in communities. But it's a process that's been iterative that has secured neighborhood buy-in that has been done with a sense of what the historic Apologies Representative Gonzalez, but what the historic pattern of development has been in that community and to impose those very small lots citywide would, again, change the way Montpelier was able to deal with housing altogether. It also does raise, particularly in Montpelier's issue, in Montpelier's situation, another issue with respect to wastewater, which is that Montpelier's wastewater facility is somewhat restricted due to court cases back in the early 2000s that prevented them from expanding capacity considerably. So a lot of these towns have pretty limited wastewater capacity. And we're not sure that they could even accommodate the build-out if, for instance, one eighth acre lots were required and somebody tried to build out every available lot. There wouldn't be capacity. In Randolph, which is also a very interesting situation, much of West Randolph and Randolph Center are served by public water and wastewater, so up by the interstate and the I-89 exchange area. Fish Hill Road is just to the west of I-89. It's a residential district. And current minimum lot sizes, there are five acres or two dwellings per 2.5 acres. The requiring one eighth acres up there in what's really more rural area, again, would change the nature of that area. And you may be familiar with the fact that at that particular interstate interchange, there was a development proposed many years ago, not actually not that many years ago. They went all the way through Act 250, where they were denied the right to develop just on the other side of I-89 because of a number of other natural resources issues and a general disinclination to allow development around interchange areas. And then Stowe, we realize that Stowe doesn't always get a lot of sympathy because they are a resort community. But in Stowe, the sewer service district extends over eight miles from the lower village all the way up the mountain road into the Trap Family Lodge, approximately 6,400 acres altogether. And right now, it includes 13 different zoning districts with logs ranging from one acre in size up to five acres. And if you were mandating one-eighth acre logs in all of those 13 zoning districts, the potential would be for more than 51,000 units of housing to be built. And that would not necessarily provide affordable housing, which is what the objective is. The sense in Stowe is that you would get a lot more short-term rentals. You would get a lot of high-end second homes just because of the nature of that community. And you wouldn't necessarily get what we're all trying to get to, which is providing housing for middle-income people, for lower-income people, for people who haven't had the opportunity to have purchased housing or owned housing or rental opportunities in some of these areas. So I did just want to emphasize that we are hearing from all kinds of towns across the state now about S-237. Again, we didn't hear as much in the Senate because there was so many other things being addressed in the Senate at the end of June there. But this is something that we really think needs to take a more iterative approach, that if the bill could incorporate the recommendations of the Zoning for Great Neighborhoods project and guidance that just came out, that that would be a much more effective way to actually provide housing. So I'm happy to take questions. And maybe I spoke too fast. I tend to do that. No, that's fine. I'm going to just ask a couple of questions first because I'm a little bit confused by some of the scenarios that you're drawing here. My impression of this legislation and as it deals with lot sizes and whatnot has to do with districts, zoning districts that have already been created that allow for multi-unit housing. And I don't see where, if you put a water line someplace that you're going to have an expensive second home on a 1 eighth acre lot in Stowe. So I'm just confused, or in Bennington. I mean, I don't know the details of Bennington if that whole road that leads out to the places have are already zoned for multi-unit. It strikes me that this legislation so far is that I understand it and I'm not done understanding it. It is about areas that have already allowed multi-unit housing and that it's not about necessarily about allowing new units. It's not imposing 1 eighth acre or 1 quarter acre lots on areas that have not been zoned in that way. Is that am I misinterpreting this proposal? That's not the way. We understand it. If you look on page five of the bill, section A, no bylaw shall have the effect of prohibiting creation of residential lots at at least 1 quarter eighth acre within any district allowing residential uses, any residential uses that are able to connect to a water system. And then 1 eighth acre within any district allowing residential uses that it's able to connect to a water and sewer system. So in Bennington, for instance, where they've extended the water line way out of town to provide water supply to existing residents, those are residential areas already. And they would be required to put in place the 1 quarter acre zoning all along that water line is the way we're understanding that. And does this have an other element about transportation or is that just the parking element? I believe that's the parking element. If I could just say a couple of things about the parking. It's sort of fascinating right now, the parking. We didn't really have any particular issue with the recommendation or the call to reduce parking for units. But that was all before COVID-19. And the really interesting twist right now is that nobody is overly interested in using public transportation. And my understanding is that sales of cars have gone through the roof in some places because people want to be safe, essentially. And so what do you do about parking? I don't have an opinion about that. I just think that the conversation has changed in the last several months. If you look at also on page 5, section C says, and I think this is what you were referring to, Mr. Chairman, no bylaw shall have the effect of prohibiting. I've read this backwards twice now. No bylaw shall have the effect of prohibiting or requiring conditional use approval for a two-unit dwelling on any lot within any regulatory district allowing residential districts. Residents, effectively, I think what it's saying is that if you have residential uses in an area served by water and or wastewater, you need to allow for two units versus one unit, so a duplexes. We don't have any objection to that. We also are fine with the language in here regarding the accessory dwelling units, which increases the potential for accessory dwelling units to be built. And as I mentioned, I think the parking question is sort of fascinating right now, but I don't really have an answer for you as to what might be best in that situation. The substantial constraints report would require a town to write the report. It gets posted on the Department of Housing and Community Development website. Any comments regarding that report also get posted on that website. And as Chip mentioned, you would not be eligible for priority for any of the grants or that towns might be eligible for. So municipal planning grants, planning grants for water and sewer, interestingly, or a host of other kinds of funding sources. I have three questions, and we do have one more witness left to hear from today. So Representative Hango, then Byrong, then Gonzalez. Thank you. This is maybe more of a comment than a question for anybody. I'm hearing a little bit about the municipalities being able to still retain local control, but then not be eligible perhaps in the same way as any municipality that followed these new regulations. But I was under the impression when reading this bill and getting the first walk through that anything that is passed in this bill will supersede any local control that any Planning Commission or municipality has enacted in their community. So I did want to make sure that I'm hearing that correctly, that this is essentially removing control of neighborhoods and character of an area from the local planning commissions and folks who live in those communities. And the other thing that concerns me is that nobody is really seeming to pay a whole lot of attention to this Zoning for Greater Neighborhoods report. And I think that a lot of work went into that. A lot of thought went into putting that out. And we really should take note of that, the points that are in that before we pass legislation like this. So there are really comments. But if somebody wants to correct me on the local control issue, I have to stand corrected. Thank you. I'd say you're correct, Representative Hango, that the way this bill is written, it is a preemption of local authority under Zoning. Which happens to a degree in some of the other state-run programs that designated downtowns and whatnot. So no, good points, good points. Let's move to Representative Byron. Karen, did you have further for the comment? No, no, no. I know time's short. Oh, I'll hush. Wonderful. Thank you, Karen. So my question's two-part question-ish revolving around the mapping component. So Virgins, the community I represent, surrounding area. We have one of the very old, very antiquated stormwater systems. And ironically, to this conversation just this morning, our public works was putting smoke through all of our lines because we're in that lead-up to trying to repair and augment this infrastructure. And yes, it's very expensive. We're looking at a total project cost of somewhere. And I think it's between $15 and $20 million, is what we're looking at right now. So with that though, I mean, we're essentially are trying to map it because we don't know where everything lies as it is. And we kind of need to know where the areas that are more compromised than others are located and how to fix it, hence pushing the smoke through the whole town. By the way, the tenant, my duplex, loved it in their basement filled with smoke this morning. That was a fun phone call. So I guess around the mapping concerns, I mean, we're kind of doing it anyway with the communities that are being proactive with their current antiquated infrastructure. So how do you see that sort of playing out? I mean, in order to do these projects correctly, they kind of have to create a map to improve the system. So I think the more important issue is what you publish. And the recommendation from the Public Works people we've talked to is that you not publish the specifics of where all those water lines and wastewater lines go that you might, that you would put out what the general service area is. And if somebody is actually doing a development project, they would go into the engineer's office, public works office anyway, and get the specifics of what connections would mean, what would be entailed in making connections. In the other bill, H926, which is when they were in the Senate initially in June, those two bills were together. But in the other bill, there is language around connections to municipal wastewater systems and water supply systems, and who permits that. So you're going to have that conversation. OK. No, no, what you just said is I'm so new to this content right now. I've been going back and forth with some folks with our local planning people, regional planning. And actually, my wife is on our municipal planning commission. So she actually walked me through a lot of the language in this. So that makes a lot of sense to me having that be secure information because of those concerns, but in obviously being made available to the parties that need it for the work. So OK, thank you. Representative Gonzalez. That was part of my question as well, Karen. And so wonder and also hearing about your concern, even though right now in terms of answering Representative Byron's question, you said that your concern is more about the security of the information rather than the cost of the mapping. But when my question is about that, I understand, as the bill is written, it doesn't say immediately there's not that date of mapping at all. And so there's not that necessarily a big upfront cost like Representative Byron's town is going through on their own right now. So I just wanted to ask your thoughts and clarification about that in terms of the cost. But actually, you might have something to add, but I think you just answered it answering Representative Byron's question. Well, that is a good point that there's not a date certain by which you have to have accomplished that. But to Representative Byron's point about the cost, it's not an inexpensive proposition to put those maps together and to actually determine where all those lines are and where the leaks are. Theoretically, the smoke wouldn't come up in anybody's basement. Yeah. And so I was just wanting to get your opinion on how it's currently written in terms of that time that's required and so that upfront cost. Because when I read the bell, I see it as potentially if someone is interested in putting in an auxiliary drawing unit on or that they're interested in splitting up a five acre lot, for instance. Like you were talking about in those places that they could ask the city to look at that information and the city could be in that process. So it could be iterative as we've used in different ways of building out and so that it wouldn't be this huge one-time cost for the city to map everything all at once is the way that I'm reading the bell. So that's why I wanted to take a minute. That's interesting. Generally, what happens is when there's a new requirement put into the planning statutes, Chapter 117 and Title 24, the next time that you update your municipal plan, you have to incorporate those provisions. So a municipal plan is in effect for eight years now. And the next time that you update your plan, which might be eight years out or might be two years out, you would include those provisions. One thing I wanted to mention about the accessory dwelling units is that that's not tied to water and sewer. That's anywhere in the municipality. And a lot of those residential units, for better or worse, are on septic, not on a municipal sewer system. So that's just another, you would have to figure out, is the septic sufficient to support that accessory dwelling unit, which is a whole different question that you have to deal with now, actually. And that's actually a question I want to deal with after our next session on this, because there were comments about adding in all these different 1-8 acre lots. And what if the municipal capacity, like Montpelier, can't handle it? And my feeling, at least what I know of locally, is that if you can't handle it, then you can't permit it. You can't demand. A developer can't demand that there be allowed to build, even if they get all the other zoning. If the capacity doesn't exist in the wastewater treatment center system, then it can't be done until that investment's been made. But we can, I think that's, let's take that next week, because I want to get to Peter Tucker before we have to head off to the floor. Thank you, Peter, for waiting. If you could just identify yourself and your affiliation and then let us know what you're thinking about S237, that would be fabulous. Sure. Thanks, Tom. Can you hear me OK? Yes. Great. So Peter Tucker here for the Vermont Association of Realtors. I'm the chair of our government affairs committee. And when S237 was introduced in the Senate, we always look at housing bills as being our bellywicked. This is what we do. We work with homeowners every day and property owners. And as I was listening to testimony, I was thinking a little bit. We have maybe a different perspective in that when you look at inclusionary zoning or the way this particular bill is written, it allows owners of properties maybe a little bit greater flexibility in what they can do with their property. So from that perspective, we think this is probably good for most property owners. At the same time, our committee members have discussed with different zoning administrators kind of the limitations of this. So we would encourage the committee or whatever committee of jurisdiction ends up with it to look at inclusionary zoning and to try and accommodate the towns in a way that allows the towns to have reasonable control at the same time. We really do feel that there are opportunities here. And when I was listening to the testimony, one of the things that kind of occurred to me, when we were talking about if it's served by water and wastewater, that it should fall into this category, my impression was that this was going to be in downtown development areas, village centers, and neighborhood-designated areas as they become defined probably in age 926. So maybe that's a way to keep it from extending all the way up Mountain Road, for instance, that there would only be available in those certain areas. We actually were a participant in the Zoning for Great Neighborhoods report. We got a grant from the National Association of Realtors that to help with that report and are very supportive of the results of that report as well. But we really come at this with a sense of home ownership. Certainly, we understand that affordable housing for rent is an important and missing ingredient in the state of Vermont. But opportunities that create housing that people can purchase is a primary interest for realtors kind of naturally. So anything that helps to accomplish that we would like to see happen. As the other comment that I had, and I will be brief, regarding the short-term rental study, I mean, I think if there's a study out there that's already been created, no need to reinvent the wheel. I do believe that allowing local municipalities to manage the way that their municipality handles their short-term rentals is the correct approach for that. And other than that, really, I just wanted to let this committee know. I know that you haven't heard from the realtors in quite some time, but that we anticipate being active on housing issues, and especially ownership of homes, because we feel that it's a real key element for families to build wealth and families to have stability. And it also adds to the tax base as well. So with that, I can make comments on the condition of the real estate market or any other questions that the committee may have. Thanks, Tom. Thanks, Peter. And we'll hear about that, I think, from you later. We can all imagine that the market's been pretty hot, but I don't want to rely on hearsay. So we'll hear from you later on that. I think what interests me, Peter, in this conversation and Chip, is that, Chip, you made a comment early on about, well, if we have to achieve a certain density over three years, and that's that we has to be with developers or builders. And Peter's comment about where this might give developers or owners more flexibility, how do those play it together? What did you mean by it might give people more flexibility? Well, if there are lower minimum standards, then a property owner would then be able to have other options for their property that they might not have under current zoning conditions. Two questions on deck here, Representative Hango and then Gonzalez. Rather than a question, this is another comment. If you'll indulge me on this. And I know you said, Mr. Chair, that we're going to talk about this next week. But I really want to put this on people's radar that septic systems, it's a big problem, as well as wastewater, municipal wastewater systems in the state of Vermont. We've had a number of occurrences over the last few years of sewage being released into our waterways because of big storms or what have you. We also have some pretty strict rules that residences currently need to follow in terms of building septic systems. So all of this is leading me to water quality, to our lakes, our rivers, and just basically being mindful of groundwater and the need, if we do build up this development that we are going to have to dispose of its waste. I have some knowledge of septic and wastewater issues and this is a real concern to me, particularly living in rural Vermont. But as we know, St. Albans and Burlington and other municipalities have had some issues as well with this. So please be mindful of our environment when we talk about this as well. Thank you. I have a feeling the second half of the bill, the 926 addresses quite a bit of that as well. But we don't know that yet. We haven't seen that bill. Representative Gonzalez. Peter, I'm wondering if from the real estate agent's perspective you could talk a little bit more about the auxiliary housing units and you talked about encouraging home ownership. And if you know about the ways that auxiliary housing, ADUs support home ownership. Support home ownership. Well, I mean, an auxiliary housing unit would typically be a rental property, right? I mean, that's my impression at any rate. What we would be encouraging of is properties that can be developed, either smaller lot size that allow for that independent property to be built and then conveyed to somebody who has greater financial interest in the property, contributing to the tax base. I think that's another, regardless of how it's done, if it adds to the grand list or the value of the property, that's a positive thing from a tax perspective. But it really, it would be properties that then can be conveyed to other parties. I'm not sure auxiliary dwelling units would always would accomplish that necessarily. It would be more in the smaller, allowing for a smaller lot size to be developed and then conveyed. So when your perspective from a real estate agent is more from the perspective of having smaller lot sizes that are more financially accessible to folks. Right, right. I think that that's really, and we talk about affordable housing, for me, it's entry level housing, something that could be achieved, maybe as they're the first step in the home ownership. Thank you. Thank you. And Peter, I'll put you on the spot in our final six minutes, just to help me understand if it's possible in less than six minutes, what drives the market? Is it the price of the land? Is it the view? Is it the sticks that are needed to build it? I mean, I guess I'll start my answer by saying it depends on the community. True, and if I can just rephrase the question possibly, that what are the underlying costs of developing a property like this? And it is, the sticks cost a certain amount of money to build, the employees to construct that home. That's a fairly constant value, if you will. The underlying cost of the land and the cost of permitting are the two things that seem to create a much higher base level, that when you add the stuff that you can't really change a lot, you can't change the roof structure, the materials used, that push affordability so much. So things like this that maybe allow for a little less infrastructure or development costs on the front side, potentially bring down that overall cost of that housing unit. Okay, everybody got that there will be a quiz on Tuesday. I'm gonna thank everybody who came. Jacob, thank you for sitting in and listening and being available. Ellen, thank you. Chip, thank you. And Karen, thank you for this. It is odd to always hear that there's, in the short time that we've had that there's this amount of testimony or this kind of detail is kind of a new opportunity for you guys to express. So I'm glad we were able to do that. We will continue working on this as remains a priority to get it right. And I think I'll leave us on a light note just as a personal disclosure, full disclosure. Peter Tucker is my wife's sister's husband's sister's husband. Reverse engineer is my statement, Tom. Yes. So we leave it at brother-in-law, but I suppose in that Vermonty kind of way, Peter and I have washed dishes at Christmas time together in different places. So just didn't wanna get that into the news in the most negative way. So thank you everybody. We have to get to the floor and we will see you at 8.30 tomorrow morning to hear about the housing programs that we've set up. Thank you everybody.